The 411 on the LGD

Over at Green Baggins the hot topic of late has been the relationship between the distinction between law and gospel and the doctrine of justification by faith alone (see the posts spanning from 3/29/10 - 4/2/10 in particular). The question being raised is, “Can someone who denies the law/gospel distinction [LGD] simultaneously affirm sola fide without messing everything up in the process?” Lane’s answer has been “No,” and he has gone so far as to call out men like Doug Wilson for their inconsistency in this regard. Once you start calling faith a work and the law the gospel, your sola fide street cred pretty much goes out the window.

In following the discussion it has become apparent that there is a lot of confusion surrounding this idea that the law and the gospel must be kept distinct. In this post I’d like to offer a few clarifying points to help people understand what we mean by the LGD.

First, it’s not a Lutheran (as opposed to Reformed) distinction. Sure, the Reformed often couch the LGD in covenantal language and speak rather of the distinction between the covenants of works and grace, but the same principle is being referred to. See Michael Horton’s “Calvin and the Law-Gospel Hermeneutic” for more on this.

Furthermore, the LGD is relevant to the issue of justification specifically, not to every single verse in the Bible. In other words, it is not to be used when discussing, say, Paul’s admonition to “reckon yourselves dead to sin and alive to God” (Rom. 6:11) concluding that, since we’re dealing with an imperative it must be classified as “law,” and since the law’s only function is to accuse us and drive us to Christ, therefore this passage is intended by the apostle to show me my need for Jesus. Though there is a whole host of interrelated issues involved in this discussion, suffice it to say here that the law has more functions beyond merely threatening us, and that passages dealing with sanctification, though undeniably “law,” should not be minimized or treated as merely preparatory for the gospel. In short, sanctification proceeds from justification, kind of like how Romans 6 follows Romans 1-5.

So when the issue at hand is the narrow issue of justification, the LGD teaches us to recognize two distinct ways that a sinner can expect to be declared righteous in God’s heavenly court. The first way is by perfectly keeping his law (which no one, after the fall, can do), the second way is by receiving and resting upon Christ and his obedience and sacrifice on our behalf. So if we are seeking to exegete a passage about how to be accepted before God, we understand that there are two ways this can happen, and we ought never to confuse the former (law) with the latter (gospel). See Phil. 3:9.

For an excellent treatment, see Meredith Kline's "Covenant Theology Under Attack."

Lastly (and as I indicated above), law and gospel refer to the covenants of works and grace respectively, meaning that if someone denies the essential, qualitative distinction between the pre- and post-fall covenants, he has implicitly denied the LGD, albeit perhaps unwittingly. When this happens, we also implicitly deny sola fide, for we are saying that the way to be justified before God is to exhibit faithful obedience in order to be accepted. This confuses works with faith (and, therefore, law with gospel) and is a perversion not only of Pauline theology, but of confessional Reformed theology as well. If there are ministers or elders espousing such ideas in a Presbyterian or Reformed church, they need to be admonished and urged to recant, or tried and deposed from their churches.

OK, you can go ahead and yell at me now....